Peter Paul Chronicles

James Levin (Convicted Clinton fundraiser and Strip Club Owner) Meets with the Clintons as Guests of Peter Paul at Hollywood Gala

On December 4, 2008,  a California Superior Court ruled that a comma in a sentence drafted  in a landmark fraud complaint filed in 2003 against Bill and Hillary Clinton was definitive in proving that the plaintiff in the case, Peter Paul, Hillary’s largest 2000 donor, admitted he knew he was defrauded by the President in November of 2000 rather than October, 2003, as Paul maintained, thereby allowing the court to dismiss the President from the case because the statute of limitations barred further prosecution.

President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton have been battling since 2001 to be dismissed as defendants and witnesses in the landmark civil fraud suit brought against them in California, Paul v Clinton et al. The suit details actions taken by Clinton as President, in concert with his wife, then First Lady and Senate candidate Hillary Clinton, to defraud Hollywood producer Peter Paul, an erstwhile business associate Bill Clinton’s.

$1.9 million in contributions to Hillary’s Senate campaign that were illegally solicited from Paul by the Clintons personally were a small part of the damages claimed by Paul. The Clintons’ illegal use of the trappings of the White House to seduce a key Japanese business partner, Tendo Oto,  away from Paul and his dot com public company Stan Lee Media, contributing to the collapse of the company in December 2000. This interference with Paul’s business was the cause of the majority of more than $50 million in damages claimed by Paul in lost stock and global business activities.

The liaison appointed by the Clintons to coordinate their involvement with Paul, Chicago convicted felon/Clinton fundraiser and strip club owner Jim Levin, secretly convinced Mr Oto to incorporate a business in the US with them instead of Paul days after Hillary’s election to the Senate was confirmed.

After the first couple invited Mr Oto, at Paul’s request, to the last State dinner held in the Clinton White House, where Oto was given special VIP treatment at a table next to the President, Levin used White House staff Kelly Craighead and Patti Solis Doyleand a private tour of the Oval Office to confirm Bill Clinton’s personal interest in working with Oto paving the way for Levin to secretly visit Japan and convince Oto to jettison Paul and his company emntirely in favor of a company supported by President Clinton.

For seven years the Clintons’ powerhouse Washington legal counsel, including David Kendall,  battled Paul and the two different public interest legal foundations that enlisted the support of more than half a million concerned Americans to financially support Paul’s singular efforts to hold the Clintons accountable for various illegalities documented by Paul and captured on hom,e videos Paul made with Hillary Clinton.

Paul and the public interest groups who supported him endeavored to use his court claims to expose the outrageous corruption and obstructions of justice engaged in by Clinton directed appointees and sycophants in the Federal judiciary, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission public interest groups and the media.

After the California Supreme Court upheld Paul’s original complaint in October, 2004 against appeals by the Clintons to dismiss it, the Clintons embarked on a legal strategy in California Superior Court in Los Angeles to abuse the First Amendment protections afforded by Califormnia’s Anti-SLAPP  law to delay and thwart Paul’s efforts to use discovery and depositions to force the Clintons to admit their various illegalities.

After two separate attempts to dismiss Hillary Clinton from the case because it violated her rights under the First Amendment to engage in protected campaign fraud to fund her campaign, the California Court of Appeals finally ruled that any illegality Hillary might have engaged in while fundraising did not disqualify her from First Amendment protection because it had no bearing on the thrust of the business fraud on which Paul brought the case!

After Hillary succeeded in having two Appellate Court judges appointed by Clinton protege Grey Davis turn California’s SLAPP law into a legal pretzel in order to justify dismissing her, Bill Clinton asserted in 2008, for the first time, his First Amendment rights to engage in a business fraud because it benefited his wife’s Senate campaign. Without ruling on that Motion, the Court decided it could use the Statute of Limitations to save the former President from liability based on the interpretation of an ambiguous sentence in the body of the complaint against Clinton.

After dismissing Clinton and Levin as Defendants, the Court set for July, 2009 trial the remaining Defendant, Hollywood Grammy’s producer Gary Smith, whose effort to use the same First Amendment argument finally failed.

As the case proceeds to trial, Hillary Clinton has been recognized by the Court as an indispensable witness who will be called to testify regarding her role in convincing Paul to hire her friend Smith to produce the biggest fundraiser of all time for a federal candidate, and to allow Smith to use his relationship with Hillary to coerce Paul to pay tens of thousands of dollars more than he bargained for.

See the article below:

Judge Lets Bill Clinton Out on Technicality, Leaving Producer Gary Smith to Stand Trial Alone

After five years of litigation against the Clintons for defrauding Hillary’s largest, 2000 Senate campaign donor — a case notable for the Clintons’ endless legal maneuvering to avoid testifying under oath — plaintiff Peter Paul has again been denied his day in court. On December 4, Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled that Bill Clinton and his agent Jim Levin will be jointly dismissed on a legal technicality. The case will, however, proceed to trial against Grammys producer Gary Smith, the Clintons’ family friend who produced the concert for Hillary’s 2000 campaign.

The dismissal as to Bill Clinton is based on the most technical of technicalities — a poorly drafted sentence in the original complaint filed in 2003 (when Judicial Watch had the case). The sentence in the 2003 complaint, which begins with the words “In late November 2000,” was intended to tell when President Clinton acted through Jim Levin to purposely interfere with Peter’s business relationship with key investor Tendo Oto. However, Judge Munoz took the position that the words “in late November 2000″ also applied to when Peter Paul discovered this had happened. On that ground, Judge Munoz decided that our revised complaint against Bill Clinton and his agent Jim Levin (filed August 8, 2008) was barred by the statute of limitations.

The interpretation of that sentence was pivotal because the clock doesn’t start ticking on a legal claim until a plaintiff learns he has the claim. In fact, Peter did not learn of the existence of his claim against Clinton for wrongful interference with a business relationship until at least 2002. We argued that the case against Clinton shouldn’t be kicked out based merely on prior counsel’s drafting error, but Judge Munoz wouldn’t budge.

Did Munoz really buy the other side’s argument, or was he just happy for an excuse not to ever have Bill Clinton on trial in his courtroom? You be the judge. But by getting out on the ultimate technicality, Bill Clinton will keep the considerable merits of this case from ever reaching a jury.

There is a silver lining to this disappointing outcome, however. Peter Paul’s fraud charges were allowed to stand against Gary Smith, the Clintons’ friend and Emmy-Award-winning producer whom Hillary insisted Peter hire to produce the concert portion of her fundraising gala. Peter was induced to hire Smith based on Hillary’s specific and insistent request and only because Hillary’s direct involvement in the negotiations caused Smith to lower his fee by $50,000. On the eve of the gala, Smith threatened to resign as producer if he wasn’t paid an additional $75,000 “personal fee,” while Hillary stood by and did nothing to enforce the fee reduction she negotiated. Thus, we still have a reason and a need to depose Hillary in this case, and we’re going to fight to make sure we’re allowed to do so.

Trial against Gary Smith is set for July 14, 2009.

Filed under: Chelsea Clinton, Hillary, bill clinton, current affairs, election, entertainment, hillary clinton, hollywood, jim levin, judge munoz, peter paul, politics, washington